Trumper
Morris
Bradman
G.Chappell (or maybe Ponting or Mcabe, hard to split)
Border or S.Waugh (fencesitting again)
Gilchrist
Miller
Warne
Davidson (think he'd offer more balance to an attack than Lindwill who was similar to Lillee)
Lillee
McGrath (thought about Spofforth, went for what I know)

Dude, you can't slam Richard for putting in Ramps and then put in Tufnell, Broad and to a lesser degree Russell (he was a quality gloveman but poor with the bat IMHO).

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

His numbers are a fairly misleading. Either he scored in dead rubbers where the Aussies were notorious for taking their foot off the gas or in 1998 away and 2001 at home, he basically hung around while the batsmen at the other end got out.

I know it can be said you can only take the chances you're given but to that, you have to then ask yourself why England refused to pick him before the final Test of his first two Ashes series'. From the chatter at the time, the English selectors didn't rate him either. And upon getting picked for full Ashes series' in 1998 and 2001, he, again, hung around. When the team needed a player to take the game by the scruff of the neck, he......hung around putting the pressure on the guys at the other end to actually do the job. They'd get out trying to do it, he'd sit on his bat at the other end in the midst of the inevitable collapse. Not exactly a team player.

You could plot a graph of 'points when momentum shifted to the opposition' against 'Ramps at the crease' and almost see r = 1 for the correlation. This is why he should be nowhere near any Ashes side. Certainly not one that wants to actually win games.

In that case you should completely disregard every run scored when a series was won since naturally people take their foot of the gas but the bowlers like Warne and McGrath still tried their best to get wickets.

I personaly wouldn't put Ramps in my Ashes XI, just sticking up for him since his record aginst Australia- dead rubber or not, is still impressive. Not everyone average 42 against that Aussie bowling line up so he can't have sucked.

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

I'll have a go at the alltime craziness too

Aus

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
G.Chappell (or maybe Ponting or Mcabe, hard to split)
Border or S.Waugh (fencesitting again)
Gilchrist
Miller
Warne
Davidson (think he'd offer more balance to an attack than Lindwill who was similar to Lillee)
Lillee
McGrath (thought about Spofforth, went for what I know)

I know far less about old school English cricket than Australian, so I may have made some bad calls; possibly Barnes in for one of the middle order to strengthen the bowling.

For Eng, given the sheer depth of No. 1-5, I'd drop Compton (which hurts since I'm an Arsenal fan! Lol) and put in a 4th seamer (Willis for me).

Statistically, George Lohmann with 77 wickets @ 13..01, SR of under 43 in 15 matches would be the choice- though I'm extremely skepticaly about the depth of players in the late 19th/early 20th century.

In that case you should completely disregard every run scored when a series was won since naturally people take their foot of the gas but the bowlers like Warne and McGrath still tried their best to get wickets.

I personaly wouldn't put Ramps in my Ashes XI, just sticking up for him since his record aginst Australia- dead rubber or not, is still impressive. Not everyone average 42 against that Aussie bowling line up so he can't have sucked.

Again, his numbers are misleading and I'm gathering by what you're saying you didn't see him bat in either 1998 or 2001. Not talking about his dead rubber Tests but the ones where he got a full series. Not once did his batting contribute to a win but, on many occasions, he did the exact opposite and was a large contributor to letting the Aussies back into the match.

Call it a bias but I'm no fan of a player who seems so unwilling to bat for the team, preferring instead of bat the same way no matter the match situation. It's a huge knock, for mine. The problem with that attitude is that it's essentially saying to the guy at the other end "It's up to you to win the game, I'm just going to bat how I bat." if he was scoring big, that'd be one thing but he faffed about so many times for 100+ balls, essentially doing very little to contribute to a win. When a bloke is just sitting on his bat handle, the obvious tactic is to contain him and lay the pressure on the other guy knowing he'll crack eventually. And that's exactly what the Aussies did. That he managed to keep his numbers above 40 says more about how good a player he wasn't than how good he was, in my view.

Plus he'd keep the wags and Craig McDermott in line. "you'll be on the next ****ing plane home sunshine!"

In all seriousness, would take Border or Waugh's hardness and mental toughness over Ponting's at time less than ideal demeanour in a heartbeat - and I'm not even in the camp that thinks Ponting is a knob, it's just that AB was exceptional in that regard.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

Me too, even as I typed my "come off the fence" post. Have changed my mind in view of Uppercut's post - I'd be happy to go with Border after all. I went for Waugh just because he seemed always to turn it on when his team needed it most and was critically important to Australia's dominance over England. Mind you, precisely the same things could be said about Border.

And Ponting, great player though he is, maybe hasn't the record he ought to have v England... so maybe Chappell...

Yeah, possibly. But how then do you rate that overall record against his efforts in specific matches like Old Trafford in 2005, or Brisbane in 2006/7?

I think you also need to take his overall record vs England with a grain of salt, or in a bit more detailed view: like all the Aussie batsmen he struggled overall in 2005 by his normal standard, only scoring 350-odd runs at a tick under 40. The two series either side of that he was pretty dominant, averaging 52 and 82.

What particularly drags his overall record against England down is his 1998 series, where he averaged only 11 across three tests and was dropped after the 3rd test. He was only 24 at the time, and came back into the team later in 1999 better for the experience. Having come in so young, he was always likely to have a point where his game came under scrutiny and his form suffered - for him, that process culminated during a series against England.

Haven't done the maths, but I imagine if you take that series out, his average vs. England would be 50+.

Don't want to make excuses for him - part of the point of career averages is that they capture the times you were bad along with the times you were good, but in his case I think he has a more 'legitimate' reason for the times he was bad and to describe it as 'underperforming pretty badly' is a bit unfair. That said, if we're trying to split players like Border, Waugh and Ponting, then maybe this sort of thing is what we need to look at.

Yeah, possibly. But how then do you rate that overall record against his efforts in specific matches like Old Trafford in 2005, or Brisbane in 2006/7?

I think you also need to take his overall record vs England with a grain of salt, or in a bit more detailed view: like all the Aussie batsmen he struggled overall in 2005 by his normal standard, only scoring 350-odd runs at a tick under 40. The two series either side of that he was pretty dominant, averaging 52 and 82.

What particularly drags his overall record against England down is his 1998 series, where he averaged only 11 across three tests and was dropped after the 3rd test. He was only 24 at the time, and came back into the team later in 1999 better for the experience. Having come in so young, he was always likely to have a point where his game came under scrutiny and his form suffered - for him, that process culminated during a series against England.

Haven't done the maths, but I imagine if you take that series out, his average vs. England would be 50+.

Don't want to make excuses for him - part of the point of career averages is that they capture the times you were bad along with the times you were good, but in his case I think he has a more 'legitimate' reason for the times he was bad and to describe it as 'underperforming pretty badly' is a bit unfair. That said, if we're trying to split players like Border, Waugh and Ponting, then maybe this sort of thing is what we need to look at.

Had nearly forgotten about that, by far the outstanding innings of the series.
However, Through glut of options more than anything he misses out (on alltime, still in the one for my lifetime).

Again, his numbers are misleading and I'm gathering by what you're saying you didn't see him bat in either 1998 or 2001. Not talking about his dead rubber Tests but the ones where he got a full series. Not once did his batting contribute to a win but, on many occasions, he did the exact opposite and was a large contributor to letting the Aussies back into the match.

Call it a bias but I'm no fan of a player who seems so unwilling to bat for the team, preferring instead of bat the same way no matter the match situation. It's a huge knock, for mine. The problem with that attitude is that it's essentially saying to the guy at the other end "It's up to you to win the game, I'm just going to bat how I bat." if he was scoring big, that'd be one thing but he faffed about so many times for 100+ balls, essentially doing very little to contribute to a win. When a bloke is just sitting on his bat handle, the obvious tactic is to contain him and lay the pressure on the other guy knowing he'll crack eventually. And that's exactly what the Aussies did. That he managed to keep his numbers above 40 says more about how good a player he wasn't than how good he was, in my view.

I've seen every England game since 1994.

He wasn't the only batsman to not take the initiative against the Aussie bowlers. It's harsh to slam just him.

Also, you don't know that his role in the England team wasn't decided by the England captain & coach. A number of batsmen aren't able to adapt to situations and a number of GREAT batsmen played the same way regardless of the match situation.

Again, I wouldn't have him in my Ashes XI, just saying that in terms of talent he wasn't bad.